Energy 235 (2021) 121307

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Increasing installable photovoltaic power by implementing power-to-

gas as electricity grid relief e A techno-economic assessment
Matthias Greiml*, Florian Fritz, Thomas Kienberger
Chair of Energy Network Technology, Montanuniversitaet of Leoben, Franz-Josef Straße 18, 8700, Leoben, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The integration of renewable electricity generation poses challenges for today's energy system. Since
Received 4 March 2021 renewable potentials are geographically unevenly distributed, solutions to overcome bottlenecks such as
Received in revised form grid congestion are necessary to raise as much renewable potentials as possible. In specific, a part of
19 May 2021
Austria is characterised with high photovoltaic installation inquiries and low electricity demand. Elec-
Accepted 19 June 2021
tricity grids are designed to cope with today's loads, therefore the integration of inquired photovoltaic
Available online 22 June 2021
would overstrain the built infrastructure. In this paper we investigate how power-to-gas can ease this
photovoltaic related grid strain. The feed-in of hydrogen into natural gas transmission pipelines and the
Keywords:
100 % RES
usage of hydrogen and biogas from local fermentation plants for methanation feeding synthetic natural
Electricity grid congestion relief gas (SNG) into local distribution grid is assessed in various scenarios. Based on the technical assessment
Levelised costs of gas results, an economic evaluation of each scenario is performed to determine generation costs of hydrogen
High degree of renewable penetration or SNG. Depending on the electrolysers location in the electricity grid, the installable photovoltaic power
Multi energy system modelling and can be increased significantly without causing electricity grid congestion. Costs for hydrogen and SNG
simulation vary across each scenario, mainly influenced by CapEx for electrolyser and methanation as well as
electricity purchasing costs.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
New solutions matching supply and demand over multiple

To meet the binding goals agreed to at the COP 21 in Paris, two
major strategies should be implemented: substituting fossil fuels
with renewable energy sources (RES) and increasing system effi-
ciency [1]. Research regarding the pathway to 100% renewable
energy systems has been gaining traction throughout the last 15
years. An increasing share of research is focusing on a cross-sectoral
approach, considering the full energy system, depicting e.g. elec-
tricity, natural gas, district heating grids, hydrogen or carbon-
dioxide grids in combination with storage and sector-coupling
options [2]. An enhanced use of RES in multi-energy-systems pre-
sents challenges for current energy systems and their operators,
since RES are mainly decentralised, not always predictable, and
introduce volatility into grids [3]. Kroposki et at [4]. concludes his
research on 100% volatile renewable energy by stating that
achieving 100% renewable energy will require [4]:
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: matthias.greiml@unileoben.ac.at (M. Greiml).
timescales.

Significant curtailment of variable renewable energy sources.

Operation capable to cope with high instantaneous penetration
of variable renewable energy sources.
Austria's climate and energy strategy #mission2030 aims to
achieve 100% renewable electricity generation net balanced over
one year [5]. Since hydroelectric and biomass potentials are already
exploited to a high degree, an expansion of wind and photovoltaic
(PV) is the only feasible option to reach this goal. Therefore, the
currently installed wind generation capacity has to be tripled,
whereas the current photovoltaic installation has to be increased
elevenfold by the year 2030 [6].
Sejkora et al. [7] provide a comprehensive study regarding
technical exergy potentials of renewable energy sources for each
Austrian district. The RES exergy potential can be directly converted
into RES energy potential. As shown in Fig. 1, technical renewable
energy potentials differ in both spatial composition and quantity.
However, the availability of certain technical potentials doesn't
allow for inference of the developability of RES [7].
Bottlenecks in exploiting renewable energy potentials can be a

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121307
0360-5442/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger Energy 235 (2021) 121307

demonstrate the positive effects of power-to-gas sector coupling in

Abbreviation a region with large photovoltaic potentials with a target to integrate
as much photovoltaic power as possible into the existing electricity
AEL Alkaline water electrolysis distribution grid.
AF Annuity factor
BGS Biogas storage 1.1. Literature overview & research need
CO2 sep CO2 separation
EP Electricity purchase Studies such as [9e15] demonstrate the advantages of power-
HS Hydrogen storage to-gas sector coupling in regions with a high degree of renewable
LCOG Levelised costs of gas penetration. To provide an overview of current fields of research for
NGP Natural gas pipeline the application of power-to-gas, literature sources are categorised
PEM Proton exchange membrane into two groups: The first group focuses on a macro perspective of
PV Photovoltaic power-to-gas applications, investigating certain regions or a na-
RES Renewable energy sources tional power-to-gas potential. While the second group focuses on
SNG Synthetic natural gas certain single power-to-gas facilities. Depending on the scope of
SS Substation the presented research, a technological and or economic potential
is investigated.

lack of local consumers followed by possible transmission or dis-
tribution grid restrictions if a spatial balance of renewable gener-
ation is necessary. To avoid grid congestion, renewable energy
sources must be curtailed as ultima-ratio-measure to avoid supply
outages [4,8]. Other solution options as an alternative to curtail-
ment due to grid restrictions are: grid expansion, sector-coupling or
energy storage.
In order to address the challenges mentioned above, we aim to
1.1.1. Single power-to-gas facility research
Using excess wind energy for a single power-to-gas facility,
Simonis and Newborough [10] investigate a power-to-gas deploy-
ment scenario in the region of Emden, Germany. The authors pro-
vide a detailed technical power-to-gas deployment plan, keeping
pace with local renewable energies expansion. Hydrogen is either
fed into the local natural gas grid or used for methanation by uti-
lising carbon dioxide from a local fermentation plant. The authors’
research also shows that electrolyser utilization increases

Fig. 1. Technical energy potential of RES per Austrian district, derived from Ref. [7] Image size: 2 columns.

2
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger
significantly within five years due to an increased availability of
renewable energy [10].
Kopp et al. [16] provide a technical and economic evaluation of
the already operational 6 MW electrolyser, located in “Energiepark
Mainz”. The technical evaluation investigates the power-to-gas
process efficiency. The economic analysis focuses on various stra-
tegies for electricity procurement, showing that participation in the
german secondary control reserve market can significantly improve
the facility's economic efficiency [16].
The influence of electricity prices and the usage of produced
hydrogen is assessed by Walker et al. [17]. The authors use various
electricity price limits to activate and deactivate the power-to-gas
facility and analyse corresponding operating costs for various sce-
narios. Furthermore, they assess potential revenue sources such as
replacing hydrogen from steam methane reformation, using
hydrogen for renewable ethanol production, and participating in
cap and trade carbon dioxide emission trading [17].
A framework for locating and modelling the flexibility potentials
considering temporal and spatial resolution as well as load and
generation in middle voltage distribution systems is introduced by
Henni et al. [15]. The authors demonstrate their approach by
assessing a potential future single power-to-gas facility. The facil-
ities locations are selected based on the developed framework.
Local middle voltage electricity and natural gas grids are consid-
ered. However, the capacity of the grids has to be estimated.
Considering avoiding reimbursements or grid expansion, profit-
ability could be achieved in the future [15].
1.1.2. Macro perspective research of power-to-gas
Estermann et al. [9] investigate the feasibility of power-to-gas to
absorb surplus power from electricity distribution networks grids
in southern Germany. Furthermore, they include biomass poten-
tials as a carbon dioxide source for the production of synthetic
natural gas. Their focus is on low-voltage distribution grid relief,
however, no real-life grids are considered. A total installed power-
to-gas capacity of 370 MW could capture 20% of excess solar in
2025 [9].
A techno-economic assessment of the future role of power-to-
gas on both regional and local levels in Baden-Württemberg is
assessed by McKenna et al. [18]. A detailed assessment of potential
carbon dioxide sources, local renewable generation, as well as
power-to-gas potentials are presented. The authors expect a cost-
covering operation of power-to-gas in 2030. Any grid restrictions
are sparsely considered [18].
Guandalini et al. [19] investigated the long term power-to-gas
potential on the national Italian scale if the whole Italian renew-
able potentials are exploited. Five percent of Italy's natural gas
consumption or seven percent of Italy's national fuel consumption
could be replaced [19]. Similar research is carried out by Bailera
et al. [20] in Spain, stating a power-to-gas potential between 7 and
19,5 GW, depending on excess renewable energy in 2050 [20].
However, to decarbonise the Spanish electricity sector and indus-
trial combined heat and power units, a power-to-gas capacity be-
tween 80 and 90 GW is necessary [21].
Greiml et al. [22] demonstrate the positive systemic effects of
power-to-gas taking a federal state's energy infrastructure into
account. However, the work didn't focus on the power-to-gas fa-
cilities location in detail, its economics, and the influence of
renewable potentials tap ability [22].
Clegg and Mancarella [23] identified a lack of research focusing
on both network implications and benefits of power-to-gas on both
electricity and natural gas grids. To overcome before mentioned
gap, the authors introduce a new methodology that has been
applied on a simplified energy grid of Great Britain to investigate
the impact of power-to-gas on both electricity and gas grids. The
3
Energy 235 (2021) 121307
electricity grid consists of a 29 busbar model and the natural gas
grid of 79 nodes. Providing an alternative to curtailment, excess
wind can be used in power-to-gas units feeding hydrogen or syn-
thetic natural gas into gas grids [23].
Similar to the research described above, Jentsch and Trost [24]
investigate the role of power-to-gas with different degrees of
renewable energy generation in Germany. They use a simplified
spatially and time resolved energy model for Germany, depicting 18
defined regions in Germany, to determine an optimized dispatch of
sector coupling and storage options [24].
To the best of our knowledge, the effect of power-to-gas on
energy transmission or distribution infrastructure is hardly inves-
tigated. Since they concentrate their research on power-to-gas
implementation on national state level, Clegg and Mancarella as
well as Jentsch and Trost include a very simplified depiction of
national energy infrastructure in their research. Their generic
infrastructure depiction doesn't allow for any deep analysis of ef-
fects caused by power-to-gas facilities on the built energy infra-
structure or on the implementation of RES potentials.
In this paper, we aim to close previously described scientific gap
by investigating the effects of power-to-gas on a rural distribution
grid section in Austria, with a high degree of potential future
renewable penetration. Furthermore, we aim to bridge between
both before mentioned scientific fields by combining technical
macro results with an economic assessment of potentially
deployable power-to-gas facilities. Following research questions
are to be investigated in this paper:
- To what extend can photovoltaic be expanded at certain sub-
stations, using variable power-to-gas power at different loca-
tions within a certain electricity- and natural gas grid section?
- What are the generation costs for hydrogen and synthetic nat-
ural gas?
- What are the effects of power-to-gas sizing and mode of oper-
ation on the economics of the power-to-gas facility?
To answer above described research question we have struc-
tured our paper as followed: The following subchapter describes
upcoming challenges in the examined area. In Section 2 the
methodology is described. Potential solution scenarios and their
corresponding technical and economic results are disclosed in
Section 3 and 4 respectively. Technical and economic results are
discussed in Section 5, followed by a conclusion and an outlook for
potential further research in Section 6.
1.2. Problem description
The examined part of Austria is sparsely populated without
large industrial energy consumers but has significant photovoltaic
potentials as can be seen in Fig. 2. Presently, the distribution grid
operator is faced with requests for photovoltaic installations that
are more than double the power of the current 110 kV distribution
grid capacity (refer to orange lines in Fig. 2). In Fig. 2, the examined
area including its infrastructure is depicted. Due to anonymization
reasons, each substation is named with a synonym.
It can be seen that substations (SS) with high photovoltaic re-
quests such as SS South and Rhine are connected to less powerful
distribution grid lines compared to other substations. At SS Drava
and SS North, the 110 kV distribution grid is connected to the
380 kV transmission grid (refer to red lines in Fig. 2). Adjacent to
the north and west, major natural gas pipelines (NGP) are
tangential to the examined area (refer to blue lines in Fig. 2). Near
SS Elbe, South and Rhine several fermentation plants are available
as potential carbon dioxide sources. In order to realise as much
requested photovoltaic power as possible solutions to overcome
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger
Fig. 2. Overview of examined area Image size: 1,5 columns.
grid congestions are necessary. Following solution scenarios are
investigated in this paper:

Installation of power-to-gas electrolyser at SS South with
hydrogen feed-in into NGP 2.

Installation of power-to-gas electrolyser at SS North with
hydrogen feed-in into NGP 1.

Installation of power-to-gas electrolyser at SS South. Produced
hydrogen as well as biogas as carbon dioxide source from local
fermentation plants is used for methanation. Produced methane
is being feed into local natural gas distribution grid.
For each scenario, we investigate to what extend the requested
photovoltaic power can be implemented into the electricity grid at
each substation without causing any grid congestion using power-
to-gas at the substations mentioned above. Based on the technical
assessment, the levelised costs of gas (LCOG) are to be calculated.
€
Currently, the guideline G31 issued by Osterreichische Ver-
einigung für das Gas-und Wasserfach allows a maximum hydrogen
content of four percent of the volume in natural gas grids [25].
However, an increase of the hydrogen content to ten percent of the
volume and further can be expected in the future [26e28]. There-
fore, for this paper, the maximum amount of hydrogen in NGP 1 and
2 is defined at ten percent of the volume.
2. Methodology
For the load flow calculations within this work, we use the self-
developed software framework HyFlow [22,29]. HyFlow aims for
load flow based design and operation simulation of flexibility op-
tions such as storage, sector-coupling or demand responsive pro-
cesses, in multi-energy-systems. In order to allow the consideration
of a broad range of energy system case studies, HyFlow depicts
three cell levels with various depths of detail for each energy carrier
considered. For example, level 1 cells can represent a 110 kV dis-
tribution grid, level 2 cells a 220 kV transmission grid, and one level
3 cell a 380 kV transmission grid. Slack nodes allow energy to be
transferred between network levels (Fig. 3 right image). If available,
4
Energy 235 (2021) 121307
energy can be transferred across energy carriers via sector coupling
options at each node (Fig. 3 left image). Sector coupling options
therefore influence cross sectoral energy carriers.
In the current version of HyFlow, the direct current power load
flow calculation has been upgraded with an alternating power load
flow calculation tool (Matpower). Matpower allows for the calcu-
lation of nodal prices as well as optimal power flow calculations
[30].
The control of hybrid elements depends on the electrical re-
sidual load (RLControl, Power(t) - Eqs. (2) and (1)) of a user-defined
subsection of the whole depicted area (see Fig. 4 and Eqs. (2-
1)e(2-3)). The described calculation is valid for Pelectrolyser smaller
than RLControl, Power. If RLControl, Power exceeds PElectrolyser, the elec-
trolyser is operated at its maximum rated power. This approach is
similar to other approaches described in Ref. [9] or [10] to absorb
excess renewable generation.
X
RLControl; Power ðtÞ ¼ PRes;Power;i ðtÞ (2-1)
    
RLControl; Power ðtÞ  0 ∧ RLControl; Power ðtÞ  Pmaxelectr:
(2-2)
PElectrolysis ¼ RLControl; Power ðtÞ (2 e3)
2.1. Technical assessment
For each scenario, the process depicted in Fig. 5 is manually
performed to determine the maximum installable photovoltaic and
corresponding electrolyser power. Photovoltaic power iteration
starts from confirmed photovoltaic power (current maximum) and
is increased incrementally up to the confirmed, plus requested
photovoltaic power (refer to “no” path at green diamond in Fig. 5).
In case of grid overloads (refer to “yes” path at green diamond in
Fig. 5), it is evaluated if the electrolyser's power was increased
before the current simulation. If it has been increased (refer to “yes”
path at blue diamond in Fig. 5), the electrolyser doesn't avoid any
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger Energy 235 (2021) 121307

Fig. 3. Various network levels in combination with cellular approach Image size: 2 columns.

Fig. 4. Example for selected control substations Image size: 1 columns.

grid overloads, therefore, a maximum PV power has been deter-
mined in the previous HyFlow simulation. If the electrolyser's po-
wer wasn't increased (refer to “no” path at blue diamond in Fig. 5)
before the current simulation, the electrolyser's power is increased
and a HyFlow simulation determines if grid overloads still occur.
As a result, various electrolyser and photovoltaic powers are
determined. For each of the investigated scenarios, further exami-
nations are performed on how produced hydrogen could be used
and if limitations occur.
The local distribution grid operator provided us residual loads of
each substation and photovoltaic generation profile both for one
year in 15 min resolved time-steps as well as technical data to
model power and gas grids.
2.2. Economic assessment
To enable a simplified economic comparison between scenarios,
the levelised costs of gas are calculated based on technical and
economic parameters for each scenario. To transform one-time
capital expenditure (CapEx) into annual payments, the annuity
method, according to Eqs. (2)e(4) is used [31]. For the calculation of
specific CapEx, two annuity factors are calculated. One considers a
12-year period (AF12) for an electrolyser and related planning and
construction expenses and the second annuity factor considers a
30-year period (AF30) for pipeline infrastructure, storage,
compressor, CO2 separation, and methanation. For both discounting
factors an interest rate of four percent is considered. Costs for

5
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger Energy 235 (2021) 121307

Fig. 5. Determination of maximum photovoltaic and electrolyser power Image size: 1,5 columns.

operational expenditure (OpEx) and electricity purchases can

hardly be predicted for a 12- or 30-year period, therefore no dis- Annual OpEx
specific OpEx ¼ (2 e6)
counting is applied. The simplified LCOG are calculated taking feedin Energy
specific CapEx, OpEx as well as costs for electricity, as displayed in
Fig. 6 and Eqs. (2-5)e(2-7) derived from Ref. [32] into account. Purchased electricity
specific electricity costs ¼ (2 e7)
feedin Energy
qn *ðq  1Þ
AF ¼ (2 e4) In the following section, we discuss costs for necessary infra-
qn  1
structure components. Costs are determined based on expected
AF annuity factor costs in the year 2025.
q discounting factor
n number of years
2.3. Electrolyser
CapEx AF12 *AF12 þ CapEx AF30 *AF30
specific CapEx ¼ (2 e5) Within this work we investigate proton exchange membrane
feedin Energy
(PEM) electrolyser for hydrogen production. A review of power-to-
gas projects in Europe by Wulf et al. shows that the majority of

Fig. 6. Calculation of LCOG Image size: 1,5 columns.

6
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger
recently realised power-to-gas projects in Europe rely on PEM
technology [33]. Therefore, PEM CapEx and OpEx are considered.
Bertuccioli et al. [34] expect PEM electrolysers specific CapEx in
a range between 480 and 1270 V/kW, whereas Butler and Spliethoff
[35] expect CapEx within a range between 500 and 1400 V/kW in
2025. Both expect OpEx excluding electricity within a range be-
tween two and five percent of CapEx per year [34,35]. Tremel [36]
includes several studies in PEM CapEx cross-down curves, ranging
from 400 to 900 V/kW in 2025. Thema et al. [37] expect PEM
electrolyser OpEx to be at about 900 V/kW in 2025. The electrolyser
efficiency of current projects is up to 77% [37]. Schiebahn et al. [38]
expect a potential future PEM electrolyser efficiency up to 74%.
Manufacturers of PEM electrolysers such as H-TEC and Siemens
Energy specify the plant efficiency of their products between 74
and 75,5% [39,40].
2.4. Methanation
Gorre et al. [41] expects CapEx of 295e375 V/kWSNG and fixed
OpEx of five percent of CapEx as well as a variable OpEx of 0.63
V/(MWel  h) in 2030 [41]. A study from Frontier Economics expect
CapEx of 432e756 V/kWCH4 in 2030 and annual OpEx of four
percent of CapEx. The methanations efficiency is, based on several
other studies defined in a range between 78 and 83% [42]. To
convert V/kWSNG and V/kWCH4 into V/kWElectrolyser CapEx they
have to be multiplied with electrolyser and methanation efficiency.
Based on selected efficiencies of an electrolyser (75%) and metha-
nation (79%), CapEx ranges between 175 and 445 V/kWel [42].
2.5. CO2 separation
€ hler [43] provides CapEx as well as fixed and variable OpEx
Do
for various CO2 separation technologies such as pressure water
scrubbing, amine gas treating, and pressure swing adsorption.
Based on costs for the mentioned technologies, each cost category
is averaged. For several processing capacities, a cost function is
determined via regression (result see Table 3) [43].
2.6. Natural gas and hydrogen pipeline
Average costs for both natural gas and hydrogen transmission
and distribution pipelines are provided by van Leuween et al. [44].
The authors provide different cost estimates based on various
studies depending on the pipeline surroundings, as displayed in
Table 1. Hydrogen pipelines require advanced technology compared
to natural gas pipelines, resulting in higher CapEx [44].
OpEx are defined as 2% of CapEx [44]. In Ref. [26] costs for
natural gas pipelines were defined as shown in Table 2.
2.7. Hydrogen and biogas storage
Costs for storage of hydrogen and biogas are widely spread
depending on pressure, size, and technology. Gorre et al. [41]
expect hydrogen storage (HS) costs of 75 V/Nm3 in the year 2030
[41]. Van Leuween et al. [44] define the following costs for steel
tanks based on several literature sources: CapEx range between 23
and 195 V/m3, and OpEx between 0,5 and 2,5% of CapEx [44]. CapEx
Table 1
Pipeline costs according to van Leuween [44].
Rural Medium Urban
CapEx methane pipeline [V/m] 100 300 500
CapEx hydrogen pipeline [V/m] 350 450 550
7
Energy 235 (2021) 121307
Table 2
Pipeline costs according to Ref. [26].
CapEx OpEx
DN 150 PN 70 300 V/m 1 V/(m  a)
DN 150 PN 6 150 V/m 1 V/(m  a)
for low pressure biogas storage (BGS) range between 12 and 53
€ hler [43].
V/m3, according to Do
2.8. Compressor
Costs for hydrogen compressors vary within a wide range, ac-
cording to van Leuween et al. [44]. CapEx range between 144 and
18,500 V/kW, indicating that costs for compressors depend highly
on their application. Most values spread around 1500 V/kW for
compression up to 70 bar. OpEx range between 1,5 and 4% of CapEx
[44]. Costs for methane and biogas compressors were defined as
shown in Table 3 according to Refs. [26,44].
2.9. Planning and construction
For planning and construction of electrolyser and methanation
Gorre et al. [41] consider planning costs of 100e160 tV. For con-
struction, 10% of CapEx are considered [41].
2.10. Electricity purchase
A study from Kost et al. [45] regarding electricity generation
costs provides cross-down curves for various renewable energies
until the year 2035. For the year 2025, electricity generation costs
for open space photovoltaic in Germany are forecasted to range
between 3 and 5,5 Vcent/kWh [45]. Considering higher solar ra-
diation in the south of Austria compared to Germany, electricity
generation costs can be assumed to be at the lower end or below
the described range [46]. The International Renewable Energy
Agency [47] expects the global levelised costs of electricity for
photovoltaics to drop to a range of 0,02 to 0,08 US$/kWh until the
year 2030. For this study, costs for electricity purchases of 30
V/MWh are considered. Network fees for electricity grid are
considered amounting to 1,15 VCent/kWh excluding value-added
tax [48,49]. Electricity purchasing prices are defined considering
near term future PV generation costs. If electricity is purchased
from open market, the price might fluctuate depending on
addressed market and season.
2.11. Selected costs for economic assessment
In Table 3, the costs for necessary facilities based on literature
overview for the economic assessment of each scenario are
displayed.
3. Scenarios
In this section the three investigated scenarios are explained.
The local distribution grid operator provided us residual loads of
each substation and photovoltaic generation profile both for one
year in 15 min resolved time-steps as well as technical data to
model power and gas grids.
3.1. Scenario 1: hydrogen feed into NGP 2
As displayed in Fig. 7, an electrolyser is placed at SS South.
Produced hydrogen is fed into NGP 2. Two modes of operation for
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger Energy 235 (2021) 121307

Table 3
Defined costs for economic assessment.

CapEx OpEx fix OpEx variable

Electrolyser 800 V/kWEl 3%/a CapEx e

Methanation 200 V/kWEl 5%/a CapEx 0; 63*PMW *hoper
CO2 separator 1528*V_ Biogas þ 872004 141*V_ Biogas þ 82654 0; 042*V_ þ 8; 71
Biogas
Hydrogen pipeline 500 V/m 1 V/(m  a) e
Natural gas or biogas pipeline PN70 300 V/m 1 V/(m  a) e
Natural gas or biogas pipeline PN6 150V/m 1 V/(m  a) e
Hydrogen storage 50 V/m3 1,5%/a CapEx
Biogas storage 50 V/m3 1,5%/a CapEx
Hydrogen compressor 1500 V/kWEl 2,5%/a CapEx 7e3 *PComp *hoper
Biomethan/Biogas compressor 389802 þ 996*V_ Biogas 2,5%/a CapEx

the electrolyser are investigated to determine a suitable mode of
operation to increase electrolyser utilization:

Electrolyser is activated once residual load of substations South
and Rhine turns negative (refer to Fig. 4).

Electrolyser is activated once the residual load of all substations
except Drava, North and West turns negative.
3.2. Scenario 2: hydrogen feed into NGP 1
In scenario 2, an electrolyser is placed at substation North and
produced hydrogen is fed into NGP 1. The electrolyser is operated
like in scenario 1 with the addition of SS Maas in operating strategy
1.
3.3. Scenario 3: Methane/SNG feed into local natural gas
distribution grid
This scenario takes into consideration local fermentation plants
in proximity to substations Elbe, South, and Rhine. The total
amount of raw gas (60% CH4, 40% CO2) available for methanation is
approximately 3400 Nm3/h. A central electrolyser is placed at
substation South, operated like scenario 1 (see Fig. 9) (see Fig. 8).
This scenario is divided into sub-scenarios, as displayed in
Fig. 10.
To overcome different production profiles between volatile
photovoltaic powered electrolyser and steady fermentation plants,
storage options are investigated for both hydrogen and biogas in
technical terms such as storage capacity as well as economic terms.
In Fig. 11 different production profiles for both hydrogen and biogas
are displayed, displaying a need for storage solutions.
To avoid biogas flaring or curtailment of fermentation plants in
case no hydrogen is available from storage or photovoltaic gener-
ation, two further cases for each sub-scenario are considered. These
include CO2 separation (CO2 sep) from biogas to produce methane,
to be fed into the local distribution grid, or electricity purchase (EP)
to operate the electrolyser with purchased electricity and provide
hydrogen for methanation.
4. Results
In this section we present technical as well as economical results
for each scenario.

Fig. 7. Scenario 1 - hydrogen feed into NGP 2 Image size: 2 columns.

8
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger Energy 235 (2021) 121307

Fig. 8. Scenario 2 - hydrogen feed into NGP 1 Image size: 2 columns.

Fig. 9. Scenario 3 - Methane feed into local distribution grid Image size: 2 columns.

4.1. Scenario 1: hydrogen feed into NGP 2
4.1.1. Assessment of technical results
The electrolysers mode of operation significantly impacts the
achievable full-load hours, as displayed in Fig. 12, where achieved
full-load hours based on installed photovoltaic and electrolyser
power are shown. Operating the electrolyser based on the residual
load of substations South and Rhine (operation strategy #1) is far
more advantageous compared to operating strategy #2 when
considering achieved full-load hours. Substations South and Rhine
have a low consumption in combination with high photovoltaic
potentials. An increased utilization occurs because an over-
production of electricity is achieved earlier, leading to longer
electrolyser production time. Operating strategy #2 increases

9
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger Energy 235 (2021) 121307

Fig. 10. Sub-scenarios in scenario 3 Image size: 2 columns.

Fig. 11. Display of different production profiles and storage usage Image size: 1,5 columns.

Fig. 12. Electrolyser full-load hours in dependence on operation strategy Image size: 2 columns.

demand in combination with a marginal increase of photovoltaic
potentials, resulting in a decreasing electrolyser utilization.
Therefore, results based on operating strategy #1 will be displayed
further onwards.
Fig. 13 displays the maximum photovoltaic power per substat-
ion that can be added to the electricity grid for certain electrolyser
powers. “PV committed” represents the current maximum instal-
lable photovoltaic power according to distribution grid operator.
“PV inquired þ committed” power contains the sum of photovoltaic
power installation inquiries. Up to 500 MW of photovoltaic power
could be added to the grid by installing a 227,5 MW electrolyser. A
further increase of electrolyser power cannot integrate any further
photovoltaic into the electricity grid due to overloads (refer to
“electricity grid limitation” in Fig. 13), occurring at grid sections
between SS Maas - North and South - Rhine.
However, the minimum flowrate in NGP 2 during summer is

10
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger Energy 235 (2021) 121307

Fig. 13. Maximum installable PV per SS and electrolyser power e scenario 1 Image size: 2 columns.

about 65,000e100,000 Nm3/h [50], allowing a maximum electro- Table 5

lyser power in the range of 30e55 MW to cope with a ten percent CapEx for scenario 1.

hydrogen feed-in limit. A hydrogen storage could store excess 35 MW electrolyser 52,5 MW electrolyser
hydrogen during daytime, and feed into NGP 2 during night time. Electrolyser 28 Mio. V 42 Mio. V
Implementing a storage could further increase the installable H2 storage e 2,6 Mio. V
electrolyser power up to approximately 100 MW (refer to “feed-in H2 pipeline 5,5 Mio. V 5,5 Mio. V
limit NGP 2” in Fig. 13). Table 4 contains technical key figures of H2 compressor 645,000 V 967,500 V
Planning and construction 2,96 Mio. V 4,36 Mio. V
scenario 1. It can be seen that an increase in electrolyser power
Produced H2 73,0 GWh 102,3 GWh
results in a decrease of both full-load hours and the ratio between Spec. CapEx 0,050 V/kWhH2 0,053 V/kWhH2
added photovoltaic power compared to electrolyser power (Padded
PV: PEL installed).

Table 6
4.1.2. Assessment of economic results Annual OpEx and electricity costs for scenario 1.
The following tables display calculated CapEx (Table 5) as well as
35 MW electrolyser 52,5 MW electrolyser
OpEx and Electricity costs (Table 6) for two different electrolyser
dimensions. CapEx for electrolyser representing about 75% of total Electrolyser 840,000 V 1,26 Mio. V
H2 storage e 51,600 V
CapEx is the main CapEx driver. OpEx and electricity costs are H2 pipeline 11,000 V 11,000 V
predominantly caused by the electrolyser, therefore about 90% of H2 compressor 24,495 V 36,744 V
specific hydrogen costs are caused by the electrolyser. Spec. OpEx 0,012 V/kWhH2 0,013 V/kWhH2
Specific hydrogen costs of 11,7 and 12,2 VCent/kWhH2 are equal Annual electricity costs 4,04 Mio. V 5,66 Mio. V
Spec. electricity costs 0,055 V/kWhH2 0,055 V/kWhH2
to 4,4 and 4,8 V/kgH2.

4.2. Scenario 2: hydrogen feed into NGP 1

4.2.1. Assessment of technical results Due to the power grid limitation explained before, we provide
Fig. 14 displays the maximum photovoltaic power per substat- technical results in Table 7, with comparable electrolyser powers as
ion that can be added to the electricity grid for a certain electrolyser in scenario 1.
power. It can be seen that any increase in electrolyser power Compared to scenario 1, the added photovoltaic power doesn't
doesn't correspond with an increase of installed photovoltaic. Since increase with rising electrolyser power. Therefore the ratio
the electrolyser is located at a substation without any photovoltaic Padded PV: PEL installed is lower compared to scenario 1.
potentials, the electricity has to be transferred via the electricity
grid to the electrolyser. This causes overloads of the electricity grid
section Maas e North. 4.2.2. Assessment of economic results
The following tables display calculated CapEx (Table 8) as well as
annual OpEx and Electricity costs (Table 9) for two different elec-
trolyser dimensions.
Table 4
Specific hydrogen costs of 13,4 and 14,0 VCent/kWhH2 are equal
Technical results of scenario 1.
to 5,3 and 5,5 V/kgH2. Although the absolute CapEx values for the
35 MW electrolyser 52,5 MW electrolyser equipment are lower compared to scenario 1, because of fewer
added PV Power 152 MW 172 MW infrastructure requirements (H2 pipeline and storage), the specific
full-load hours electrolyser 2770 h 2598 h CapEx values are higher due to fewer electrolyser full-load hours.
electricity consumption 97,0 GWh 136,4 GWh Lower full-load hours compared to scenario 1 are caused by
Padded PV: PEL installed 4,3 3,3
including SS Maas into the control area of the electrolyser.
11
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger Energy 235 (2021) 121307

Fig. 14. Maximum installable PV per SS and electrolyser power e scenario 2 Image size: 2 columns.

Table 7 CO2-separation is installed.

Technical results of scenario 2. If electrolyser power is increased to 55 MW or beyond, it can be
35 MW electrolyser 52,5 MW electrolyser seen in Fig. 16 that even small power increases lead to large storage
size growth. This can be explained by the annual production
added PV Power 94 MW 94 MW
full-load hours electrolyser 2108 h 1931 h characteristics of photovoltaic. From April to September, consider-
electricity consumption 73,8 GWh 101,4 GWh ably more hydrogen is produced, which is stored to be used during
Padded PV: PEL installed 2,7 1,8 winter months. A declining number of storage cycles indicates a
longer storage duration. There is hardly any difference between
both storage technologies (hydrogen or biogas storage) in the
Table 8 technical assessment.
CapEx for scenario 2. As demonstrated, if biogas or hydrogen is stored, the influence is
35 MW electrolyser 52,5 MW electrolyser negligible in the technical assessment. The main difference be-
tween both sub-cases of each sub-scenario (see Fig. 10) is if either
Electrolyser 28 Mio. V 42 Mio. V
H2 pipeline 2,5 Mio. V 2,5 Mio. V electricity purchase or CO2 separation is applied.
H2 compressor 645,000 V 967,500 V Fig. 17 displays electrolyser full-load hours in the range of
Planning and construction 2,96 Mio. V 4,36 Mio. V 2500e2650 h per year if a CO2 separation is used. In the case of
Produced H2 55,3 GWh 76,0 GWh
electricity purchases, electrolysers reach far more full-load hours.
Spec. CapEx 0,063 V/kWhH2 0,068 V/kWhH2
Based on the available amount of CO2, an electrolyser power up to
97 MW could be installed. However, in this case, annual storage of
hydrogen would be necessary. If further CO2 potentials can be
Table 9 tapped, an electrolyser power of 227,5 MW could be installed
Annual OpEx and electricity costs for scenario 2.
before electricity grid restrictions prohibit any further increase of
35 MW electrolyser 52,5 MW electrolyser electrolyser power. Table 10 contains technical key figures for
Electrolyser 840,000 V 1,26 Mio. V scenario 3 for an electrolyser power similar to scenario 1 and 2.
H2 pipeline 5000 V 5000 V
H2 compressor 24,945 V 32,906 V
4.3.2. Assessment of economic results
Spec. OpEx 0,016 V/kWhH2 0,017 V/kWhH2
Annual electricity costs 3,06 Mio. V 4,21 Mio. V
The economic assessment is split into two parts, according to
Spec. electricity costs 0,055 V/kWhH2 0,055 V/kWhH2 sub-scenarios defined in Fig. 10. Produced methane is related to
methane produced from methanation (SNG) and CO2 separation.
Firstly, the costs of hydrogen storage are investigated (see
Table 11 and Table 12).
4.3. Scenario 3: Methane/SNG feed into local natural gas Methane costs are 16,4 VCent/kWhSNG for CO2 separation and
distribution grid 14,5 VCent/kWhSNG for electricity purchase. The price difference is
caused by CO2 separation, and different methane production.
4.3.1. Assessment of technical results Secondly, the costs for biogas storage are investigated (see
Results for both hydrogen and biogas storage are equal in terms Table 13 and Table 14).
of purchased power, therefore, in Fig. 15 we distinguish between Methane costs are 15,4 VCent/kWhSNG for CO2 separation and
photovoltaic- and grid sourced electricity. In the case of the lowest 14,0 VCent/kWhSNG for electricity purchase. The price difference is
considered electrolyser power of 47,5 MW, about 45% of the used caused by CO2 separation, and different amounts of methane
electricity is sourced from the electricity grid. Compared to an production.
electrolyser power of 65 MW, only about 25% electricity purchases Comparing all four displayed sub-scenarios, biogas storage in
from the grid. Electricity purchases are necessary only in case no combination with electricity purchases is the most cost efficient
solution for methanation.
12
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger Energy 235 (2021) 121307

Fig. 15. Results electricity purchase for both sub-scenarios Image size: 2 columns.

Fig. 16. Storage size and cycles Image size: 2 columns.

Fig. 17. Comparison of electrolyser full-load hours between CO2 separation and electricity purchase Image size: 2 columns.

Table 10
Technical results of scenario 2.

52,5 MW electrolyser, CO2 separation 52,5 MW electrolyser, Electricity purchase

added PV Power 172 MW 172 MW

full-load hours electrolyser 2610 h 4265 h
electricity consumption 137,0 GWh 223,9 GWh
Padded PV: PEL installed 3,3 3,3
Annual storage cycles 106 106

13
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger Energy 235 (2021) 121307

Table 11 photovoltaic power are displayed. Hydrogen generation costs range

CapEx for sub-scenario hydrogen storage. from 11,7 to 14 VCent/kWhH2. Methane generation costs range
52,5 MW electrolyser from 14 to 16,4 VCent/kWhSNG.
CO2 separation Electricity purchase
Gorre et al. [41] calculates SNG production costs between a
range of 8,5 to 31 VCent/kWhSNG in 2030. The electrolyser power is
Electrolyser 42 Mio. V 42 Mio. V
10 MW and operates between 1000 and 6000 full-load hours per
Methanation 10,5 Mio. V 10,5 Mio. V
CO2 separation 6,1 Mio. V e year. Electricity costs are expected to be 25 V/MWh [41]. Zauner
H2 pipeline 5,5 Mio. V 5,5 Mio. V et al. [51] expect SNG production costs of 43 VCent/kWhSNG in 2020
H2 storage 6,1 Mio. V 6,1 Mio. V and 21 VCent/kWhSNG in 2030. A 50e100 MW electrolyser is
Methane compressor 3,8 Mio. V 3,8 Mio. V
considered, operated with energy from a 100 MW photovoltaic
Methane pipeline 9,2 Mio. V 9,2
Planning and construction 5,4 Mio. V 5,4 Mio. V plant. The electrolysis achieves 1400 full-load hours if it's feed from
Produced methane 106,1 GWh 133,1 GWh photovoltaic and 4000 to 6000 full-load hours if additional elec-
Spec. CapEx 0,074 V/kWhSNG 0,056 V/kWhSNG tricity purchases are considered. Electricity purchases can reduce
SNG production costs to 14 VCent/kWhSNG in 2020 and 10 to 12
VCent/kWhSNG 2030. Electricity prices are estimated to be 35
Table 12 V/MWh in 2020 and 65 V/MWh in 2030 [51]. The calculated costs
Annual OpEx and electricity costs for sub-scenario hydrogen storage. in Scenario 3 are in range with other research papers. A detailed
52,5 MW electrolyser comparison is difficult since each study has its unique scenarios. For
example, our cost calculation includes necessary infrastructure
CO2 separation Electricity purchase
investments.
Electrolyser 1,26 Mio. V 1,26 Mio. V Greenpeace Energy [52] published a study, concluding several
Methanation 709,261 V 814,737 V
papers regarding the costs of green hydrogen. Costs are expected to
CO2 separation 1,08 Mio. V e
H2 pipeline 11,000 V 11,000 V be 16,5 VCent/kWhH2 in 2020 and between 9 and 12 VCent/kWhH2
H2 storage 122,306 V 122,306 V in 2030. Currently, hydrogen from fossil sources can be sourced for
Methane compressor 222,862 V 304,238 V about one quarter of the electrolysers costs [52]. Kayfeci et al. [53]
Methane pipeline 61,000 V 61,000 V
calculates hydrogen production costs from photovoltaic of 5,8 to
Spec. OpEx 0,036 V/kWhSNG 0,019 V/kWhSNG
Annual electricity costs 5,70 Mio. V 9,29 Mio. V 23,3 $USD/kg, equal to 17,9 to 49,9 VCent/kWhH2
Spec. electricity costs 0,054 V/kWhSNG 0,070 V/kWhSNG (EUR:USD ¼ 1:1,2) [53].
The economic comparison of results shows that calculated
production costs are in line with other research. However, any price
Table 13 deviation of the main cost drivers such as electrolyser and
CapEx for sub-scenario biogas storage. methanation CapEx or electricity purchase costs lead to signifi-
cantly different results.
52,5 MW electrolyser
In Fig. 19, each scenarios’ limitations as well as installed
CO2 separation Electricity purchase
photovoltaic and electrolyser power are displayed. Only scenario 1
Electrolyser 42 Mio. V 42 Mio. V and 3 enable the installed photovoltaic power to increase beyond
Methanation 10,5 Mio. V 10,5 Mio. V grid limits. If limitations such as feed-in limit and CO2 availability
CO2 separation 6,1 Mio. V e
H2 pipeline 5,5 Mio. V 5,5 Mio. V
can be solved, up to 227,5 MW electrolyser and 500 MW photo-
Biogas storage 2,2 Mio. V 2,2 Mio. V voltaic can be integrated into the electrical grid.
Methane compressor 3,8 Mio. V 3,8 Mio. V If the total inquired and committed photovoltaic potential of
Methane pipeline 9,2 Mio. V 9,2 621 MW should be integrated into the grid, further solutions such
Planning and construction 5,4 Mio. V 5,4 Mio. V
as a second electrolyser or electricity grid expansion are to be
Produced methane 106,1 GWh 133,1 GWh
Spec. CapEx 0,068 V/kWhSNG 0,051 V/kWhSNG investigated. In contrast to our research, there are suggestions to
implement large quantities of electrolysers in low- and middle
voltage electricity grids [9,15].
The electrolyser's achievable full-load hours are not only influ-
Table 14
Annual OpEx and electricity costs for sub-scenario biogas storage. enced by the electrolysers location but also its mode of operation.
As we've demonstrated, the mode of operation can be influenced by
52,5 MW electrolyser
the considered area (see results of scenario 1) as well as applied
CO2 separation Electricity purchase technology (CO2 separation or electricity purchases in scenario 3).
Electrolyser 1,26 Mio. V 1,26 Mio. V The economic efficiency of the electrolyser could potentially be
Methanation 709,971 V 814,737 V further enhanced if waste heat is considered. For example, a H-TEC
CO2 separation 1,09 Mio. V e electrolyser can provide waste heat at a temperature of up to 65  C
H2 pipeline 11,000 V 11,000 V
Biogas storage 43,775 V 43,775 V
[40]. However, the waste heat production corresponds with
Methane compressor 222,912 V 304,238 V hydrogen production, therefore waste heat would mainly accrue
Methane pipeline 61,000 V 61,000 V during summer months. Further research would be necessary to
Spec. OpEx 0,032 V/kWhSNG 0,019 V/kWhSNG assess the usability of waste heat in the examined area. Scenario 2
Annual electricity costs 5,70 Mio. V 9,29 Mio. V
has shown in comparison to scenario 1 and 3 that the electrolyser's
Spec. electricity costs 0,054 V/kWhSNG 0,070 V/kWhSNG
location has to be selected carefully. If the electrolyser is misplaced,
no grid relief can be achieved. In order to preselect suitable loca-
5. Discussion of results tions, the framework described in Ref. [15] could be helpful for
similar future research. Comparing the ratio between additionally
In this section, scenario results are discussed and compared installed photovoltaic and electrolyser's power (Padded PV: PEL
with other research. installed), a smaller electrolyser power is favourable because the ratio
In Fig. 18 the costs for hydrogen or SNG as well as achievable between additionally installed photovoltaic and electrolyser's
14
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger
Fig. 18. Technical and economical results Image size: 2 columns.
Fig. 19. Technical limits comparison of each scenario Image size: 1,5 columns.
power is greater. Additionally, a smaller electrolyser can achieve
higher full-load hours, benefitting the electrolysers economic effi-
ciency. The correlation between higher achievable full-load hours
and smaller electrolyser power is also observed in Ref. [10],
although electricity is sourced from wind power.
In case grid expansion is considered as an alternative to power-
to-gas, the grid section from SS Elbe via Rhine and Maas to North,
totaling approximately 100 km length, must be strengthened.
CapEx of 600 V/m, based on an Austrian 110 kV grid construction
cost analysis can be used to determine grid expansion costs [54].
Without a detailed analysis, the CapEx for grid strengthening of 60
Mio.V is comparable to the presented power-to-gas scenarios.
6. Conclusion and future outlook
Within this work, we discuss the positive impact of power-to-
gas sector-coupling in terms of increasing renewable photovoltaic
electricity generation in an Austrian region. Current literature
regarding power-to-gas research is mainly focused on either a
regional or national level power-to-gas potential, or the operation
of a single power-to-gas facility. A scientific gap was identified;
both mentioned fields of research don't consider the restrictions in
real-life energy grids in their assessment. To bridge between both
areas of research we conducted a technical assessment of the in-
fluence of power-to-gas on an existing energy grid and used tech-
nical results to determine the production costs for renewable
hydrogen or SNG.
The examined region is rural, lagging major electricity con-
sumers but offers high renewable potentials. Due to the low
15
Energy 235 (2021) 121307
electricity demand, the local distribution grid's capacity is not
designed to integrate high PV potentials. We believe the described
approach of using an electrolyser as a grid relief measure can be
considered in any region with a similar characteristic, provided the
natural gas grid is accessible and within close proximity. A region
with similar characteristics may include:

High potential of renewable energy sources

Low transmission capacity of electricity grids

Low electricity demand

Rural, sparsely populated area
In case a carbon-dioxide source (e.g. from: fermentation plants,
industry) is available, produced hydrogen can be used for metha-
nation and feed-in natural gas grids without restrictions.
The examined scenarios show that an electricity grid relief can
be achieved using power-to-gas as long as the electrolyser is
correctly positioned. The location as well as the mode of operation
influences both the technical and economic efficiency of the elec-
trolyser. Technically, using a 227,5 MW electrolyser, up to 500 MW
of photovoltaic could be implemented into the current electricity
grid. Depending on the electrolyser's rated power, between 1650
full-load hours for a 227,5 MW electrolyser up to 3000 full-load
hours for a 17,5 MW electrolyser from excess photovoltaic gener-
ation can be achieved. In case electricity purchases are allowed, the
electrolyser's full-load hours can be increased up to 4700 h. Smaller
electrolyser powers are favourable in terms of both economic and
technical efficiency. Further research should be carried out if
several smaller decentralised electrolysers are favourable
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger
compared to one centralised electrolyser in both technical and
economic efficiency. Furthermore, the usage of waste heat could be
investigated to increase the electrolysers economic efficiency.
Based on technical results, such as electrolyser's full-load hours
and literature values for possible further cost developments, an
economic assessment for each scenario was carried out. The eco-
nomic assessment shows that generation costs for hydrogen (11,7
to 14 VCent/kWh) or SNG (14e16,4 VCent/kWh) in Austria are in
line with literature expectations. The main cost drivers for both
renewable hydrogen and SNG are CapEx for electrolyser and
methanation as well as energy purchasing costs. Although costs are
calculated to the best of our knowledge based on various literature
sources, deviations from the assumed costs may lead to signifi-
cantly different generation costs for hydrogen or SNG.
Raw materials for fermentation plants and large-scale photo-
voltaic consume large land areas for plantation and installation,
potentially leading to land use conflicts. One further step should be
a life-cycle assessment in order to examine the environmental
impact of the proposed solution.
Credit author statement
Matthias Greiml: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Writing e original draft. Florian Fritz: Methodol-
ogy, Software, Formal analysis, Visualization. Thomas Kienberger:
Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing e review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank E-Netze Steiermark for their kind contribu-
tions to this project.
References
[1] Collins Se an, Deane John Paul, Poncelet Kris, Panos Evangelos,
Pietzcker Robert C, Delarue Erik, Gallacho  P
 ir O, adraig Brian. Integrating short
term variations of the power system into integrated energy system models: a
methodological review. In: Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, vol.
76; 2017. p. 839e56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.090.
[2] Hansen Kenneth, Breyer Christian, Lund Henrik. Status and perspectives on
100% renewable energy systems. Energy 2019;175:471e80. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.092.
[3] Mancarella Pierluigi. MES (multi-energy systems): an overview of concepts
and evaluation models. In: Energy, vol. 65; 2014. p. 1e17. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.041.
[4] Kroposki Benjamin, Johnson Brian, Zhang Yingchen, Gevorgian Vahan,
Denholm Paul, Hodge Bri-Mathias, Hannegan Bryan. Achieving a 100%
renewable grid: operating electric power systems with extremely high levels
of variable renewable energy. 2. In: IEEE power and energy magazine, vol. 15;
2017. p. 61e73. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPE.2016.2637122.
[5] #mission2030: #mission2030 : Austrian Climate and Energy Strategy. 2018.
Vienna, September, https://mission2030.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/
Klima-Energiestrategie_en.pdf.
[6] Gruber Karl Heinz. Umsetzung der #mission2030-Ziele aus Sicht von Oes-
terreichs Energie. https://iewt2019.eeg.tuwien.ac.at/download/contribution/
presentation/327/327_presentation_20190213_173020.pdf. Review date:
2021-01-08.
[7] Sejkora Christoph, Kühberger Lisa, Radner Fabian, Trattner Alexander,
Kienberger Thomas. Exergy as criteria for efficient energy systemsda spatially
resolved comparison of the current exergy consumption, the current useful
exergy demand and renewable exergy potential. 4. In: Energies, vol. 13; 2020.
p. 843. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13040843.
[8] Doering Michael. Assessment of storage options for reduction of yield losses in
a region with 100% renewable electricity. In: Energy procedia, vol. 73; 2015.
p. 218e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.675.
[9] Estermann T, Newborough M, Sterner M. Power-to-gas systems for absorbing
16
Energy 235 (2021) 121307
excess solar power in electricity distribution networks. 32. In: International
journal of hydrogen energy, vol. 41; 2016. p. 13950e9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.05.278.
[10] Simonis B, Newborough M. Sizing and operating power-to-gas systems to
absorb excess renewable electricity. In: International journal of hydrogen
energy, vol. 42; 2017. p. 21635e47. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2017.07.121.
[11] Walker Sean B, Mukherjee Ushnik, Fowler Michael, Elkamel Ali. Bench-
marking and selection of Power-to-Gas utilizing electrolytic hydrogen as an
energy storage alternative. In: International journal of hydrogen energy, vol.
41; 2016. p. 7717e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.09.008.
[12] van Leeuwen Charlotte, Mulder. Machiel: power-to-gas in electricity markets
dominated by renewables. In: Applied energy, vol. 232; 2018. p. 258e72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.217.
[13] Hidrogeno Abengoa, Liquide Air, AkzoNobel, Alstom ECN, elementenergy,
eurogas, GERG, HEDNO. Hellenic petroleum, HIA, hydrogenics, inabensa, ITM
power, linde group, moixa technology, NEL hydrogen, nothern power grid,
NOW, proton on site, PAE RAE OREDT, res AMERICAS, shell, SIEMENS, statk-
raft, statoil, sunfire, TATA chemicals, VANADIS POWER, VATTENFALL, VOITH.
In: Commercialisation of energy storage in Europe : a fact-based analysis of
the implications of projected development of the European electric power
system towards 2030 and beyond for the role and commercial viability of
energy storage; 2015. Brussels, Match, https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/
default/files/CommercializationofEnergyStorageFinal_3.pdf.
[14] Bellocchi Sara, Falco Marcello de, Gambini Marco, Manno Michele,
Stilo Tommaso, Vellini Michela. Opportunities for power-to-Gas and Power-
to-liquid in CO2-reduced energy scenarios: the Italian case. In: Energy, vol.
175; 2019. p. 847e61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.116.
[15] Henni Sarah, Staudt Philipp, Kandiah Balendra, Weinhardt Christof. Infra-
structural coupling of the electricity and gas distribution grid to reduce
renewable energy curtailment. In: Applied energy, vol. 288; 2021. p. 116597.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116597.
[16] Kopp M, Coleman D, Stiller C, Scheffer K, Aichinger J, Scheppat B,
Mainz Energiepark. Technical and economic analysis of the worldwide largest
Power-to-Gas plant with PEM electrolysis. 19. In: International journal of
hydrogen energy, vol. 42; 2017. p. 13311e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2016.12.145.
[17] Walker Sean B, van Lanen Daniel, Fowler Michael, Mukherjee Ushnik. Eco-
nomic analysis with respect to Power-to-Gas energy storage with consider-
ation of various market mechanisms. In: International journal of hydrogen
energy, vol. 41; 2016. p. 7754e65. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2015.12.214.
[18] McKenna RC, Bchini Q, Weinand JM, Michaelis J, Ko €nig S, Ko € ppel W,
Fichtner W. The future role of Power-to-Gas in the energy transition: regional
and local techno-economic analyses in Baden-Württemberg. In: Applied en-
ergy, vol. 212; 2018. p. 386e400. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2017.12.017.
[19] Guandalini G, Robinius M, Grube T, Campanari S, Stolten D. Long-term power-
to-gas potential from wind and solar power: a country analysis for Italy. 19.
In: International journal of hydrogen energy, vol. 42; 2017. p. 13389e406.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.03.081.
[20] Bailera Manuel, Lisbona. Pilar: Energy storage in Spain: Forecasting electricity
excess and assessment of power-to-gas potential up to 2050. Energy 2018;143:
900e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.069.
[21] Lisbona Pilar, Frate Guido Francesco, Bailera Manuel, Desideri Umberto. Po-
wer-to-Gas: analysis of potential decarbonization of Spanish electrical system
in long-term prospective. Energy 2018;159:656e68. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2018.06.115.
[22] Greiml Matthias, Traupmann Anna, Sejkora Christoph, Kriechbaum Lukas,
Bo € ckl Benjamin, Pichler Patrick, Kienberger Thomas. Modelling, designing and
operation of grid-based multi-energy systems. 7-24 Pages. Intl J Sustain Energy
Plan manag 2020;29. https://doi.org/10.5278/ijsepm.3598. International
Journal of Sustainable Energy Planning and Management, Vol. 29 (2020)
(2020).
[23] Clegg Stephen, Mancarella Pierluigi. Integrated modeling and assessment of
the operational impact of power-to-gas (P2G) on electrical and gas trans-
mission networks. In: IEEE transactions on sustainable energy, 6; 2015.
p. 1234e44. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2015.2424885.
[24] Jentsch Mareike, Trost Tobias, Ho € fling Holger (Mitarb), Jachmann Henning
(Mitarb). Analyse von Power-to-Gas-Energiespeichern im regenerativen
Energiesystem. Kassel; October 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/301688145_Analyse_von_Power-to-Gas-Energiespeichern_im_
regenerativen_Energiesystem.
[25] €
Osterreichische Vereinigung für das Gas- und WAsserfach: Regeln der OVGW€ -
€
richtlinie G 31 : Erdgas in Osterreich: Gasbeschaffenheit. 2001. Wien.
[26] €
OVGW, Leoben Montanuniversita €t, Wien WU. DBI Gas- und Umwelttechnik
GmbH, TU Wien, JKU Linz, ERIG: Greening the Gas : forschungsbericht 2019.
2vol. 29; 2020. Vienna, https://www.ovgw.at/media/medialibrary/2020/03/
OVGW_JB_forschung19_hi_corr2.pdf.
[27] Gas Connect Austria. Mit Hochdruck für mehr Wasserstoff e status quo und
Chancen. https://www.gasconnect.at/aktuelles/news-presse/news/detail/
News/mit-hochdruck-fuer-mehr-wasserstoff-status-quo-und-chancen.
Aktualisierungsdatum: 2021-01-11.
[28] Austrian Gas Grid Management AG, Langfristige Planung. Für die Gas Vertei-
€
lernetzinfrastruktur in Osterreichfür den Zeitraum 2020e2029. https://www.
M. Greiml, F. Fritz and T. Kienberger
e-control.at/documents/1785851/1811582/LFP19_Bericht_A2_xxxBGG_inkl-
Anhang.cleaned.pdf/dd1c0f44-05d4-0cc6-b951-9460e5bfaa8b?
t¼1574159767808; 2019. 2019.
[29] Bo€ckl Benjamin, Greiml Matthias, Leitner Lukas, Pichler Patrick,
Kriechbaum Lukas, Kienberger Thomas. HyFlowda hybrid load flow-
modelling framework to evaluate the effects of energy storage and sector
coupling on the electrical load flows. Energies 2019;12(5):956. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en12050956.
[30] Zimmerman Ray Daniel, Murillo-Sanchez, Edmundo Carlos, Thomas Robert
John. MATPOWER: steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for
power systems research and education. 1. In: IEEE transactions on power
systems, vol. 26; 2011. p. 12e9. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TPWRS.2010.2051168.
[31] Konstantin Panos. Praxisbuch Energiewirtschaft : energieumwandlung, -trans-
port und -beschaffung, Übertragungsnetzausbau und Kernenergieausstieg. 4.,
aktualisierte Auflage. Berlin: Springer Vieweg; 2017 (VDI-Buch). 978-3-662-
49823-1.
[32] Raikar Santosh, Adamson Seabron. Renewable energy finance in the inter-
national context. In: Raikar Santosh, Adamson Seabron, Hrsg, editors.
Renewable energy finance : Theory and practice. London: Academic Press;
2020. p. 185e220.
[33] Wulf Christina, Linßen Jochen. Zapp, petra: Review of power-to-gas Projects in
Europe. Energy Procedia 2018;155:367e78. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2018.11.041.
[34] Bertuccioli Luca, Chan Alvin, Hart David, Lehner Franz, Madden Ben,
Standen Eleanor. Study on development of water electrolysis in the EU. 7.2.
https://www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/study%20electrolyser_0-Logos_
0_0.pdf; 2014.
[35] Buttler Alexander, Spliethoff Hartmut. Current status of water electrolysis for
energy storage, grid balancing and sector coupling via power-to-gas and
power-to-liquids: a review. In: Renewable and sustainable energy reviews,
vol. 82; 2018. p. 2440e54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.003.
[36] Tremel Alexander. Electricity-based fuels. Cham: Springer International Pub-
lishing; 2018. 978-3-319-72458-4.
[37] Thema M, Bauer F, Sterner M. Power-to-Gas: electrolysis and methanation
status review. In: Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, vol. 112; 2019.
p. 775e87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.030.
[38] Schiebahn Sebastian, Grube Thomas, Robinius Martin, Tietze Vanessa,
Kumar Bhunesh, Stolten Detlef. Power to gas: technological overview, systems
analysis and economic assessment for a case study in Germany. 12. In: In-
ternational journal of hydrogen energy, vol. 40; 2015. p. 4285e94. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.01.123.
[39] SIEMENS energy. Silyzer 300 : The next paradigm of PEM electrolysis. https://
assets.siemens-energy.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:17cdfbd8-13bd-4327-
9b26-383e4754bee3/datasheet-final1.pdf. Review date: 2021-01-08.
[40] H-TEC SYSTEMS. PEM-Elektrolyseur e das Bindeglied für Sektorenkopplung
und dezentrale H₂-Produktion. https://www.h-tec.com/fileadmin/Content/
PDFs/19022019/H-TEC_SYSTEMS_Datenblatt_Elektrolyseur_ME450_1400_DE.
pdf. Review date: 2021-01-08.
[41] Gorre Jachin, Ortloff Felix, van Leeuwen Charlotte. Production costs for syn-
thetic methane in 2030 and 2050 of an optimized Power-to-Gas plant with
intermediate hydrogen storage. Appl Energy 2019;253:113594. https://
17
Energy 235 (2021) 121307
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113594.
[42] Verkehrswende Agora, Energiewende Agora. Frontier economics; perner, jens
(mitarb.); unteutsch, michaela (mitarb.); lo € venich, andrea (mitarb.); deutsch,
matthias (mitarb.); maier, urs (mitarb.). Berlin: Die zukünftigen Kosten
strombasierter synthetischer Brennstoffe; 2018. https://www.agora-
energiewende.de/fileadmin2/Projekte/2017/SynKost_2050/Agora_SynCost-
Studie_WEB.pdf.
[43] Do€hler, Helmut (Hrsg.). Faustzahlen biogas. 3. Ausg. Darmstadt: KTBL; 2013.
978-3-941583-85-6.
[44] van Leeuwen, Zauner Charlotte. Andreas; Gorre, Jachim (Mitarb.): Innovative
large-scale energy storage technologies and Power-to-Gas concepts after opti-
misation : Report on the costs involved with PtG technologies and their potentials
across the EU. 30.04. 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/
documents/downloadPublic?
documentIds¼080166e5ba3ba6a8&appId¼PPGMS.
[45] Kost Christoph, Shammugam Shivenes, Jülch Verena, Nguyen Huyen-Tran,
Schlegl Thomas, Henning Hans-Martin (Mitarb). Bett, andreas (mitarb.) :
stromgestehungskosten erneuerbare energien. Freiburg. https://www.ise.
fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/DE2018_
ISE_Studie_Stromgestehungskosten_Erneuerbare_Energien.pdf; March 2018.
[46] European Commission. Photovoltaic geographical information system
(PVGIS). https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/pvgis. Review date: 2021-01-08.
[47] International renewable energy agency. Future of solar photovoltaic :
deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and socio-economic
aspects. Abu Dhabi: A Global Energy Transformation Paper; 2019. 978-992-
9260-156-0.
€
[48] Bundeskanzleramt. Anderung der Systemnutzungsentgelte-verordnung 2018
(SNE-V 2018 - novelle 2020) (idF v. BGBl. II nr. 424/2019 - teil 2). In: BGBl. II
Nr. 424/2019; 2019.
[49] Wko OO. € Systemnutzungsentgelte für Strom. https://www.wko.at/service/
ooe/umwelt-energie/Die-Strom-Netzentgelte-2020-im-Detail.pdf. Review
date: 2021-03-01.
[50] Austrian gas grid management: marktgebietsdaten. https://platform.aggm.at/
vis/visualisation/map.
[51] Zauner Andreas, Bo € hm Hans, Rosenfeld Daniel C, Tichler Robert. Innovative
large-scale energy storage technologies and Power-to-Gas concepts after
optimization. Analysis on future technology options and on techno-economic
optimization; 2019. 28.02, https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/
documents/downloadPublic?
documentIds¼080166e5c58ae3ff&appId¼PPGMS.
[52] Bukold Steffen. Blauer wasserstoff : Perspektiven und Grenzen eines neuen
technologiepfades. January, https://www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/
docs/publikationen/Studien/blauer-wasserstoff-studie-2020.pdf; 2020.
[53] Kayfeci Muhammet, Keçebaş Ali, Bayat Mutlucan. Hydrogen production. In:
Solar hydrogen production. Elsevier; 2019. p. 45e83. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-814853-2.00003-5.
[54] Lehner Erich, Schrenk Katharina. Gutachten im Auftrag der OO € Landesholding
GmbH zum Investitions-und Kostenvergleich FreileitungeErdkabel auf der
110 kV-Spannungsbene im la €ndlichen Raum. December. Linz; 2018. https://
www.land-oberoesterreich.gv.at/Mediendateien/Formulare/Dokumente%
20UWD%20Abt_US/4_RK_18_Gutachten_OoeLaHol_FINAL_20181221.pdf.